KenPom Ratings: Arizona State at No. 34?

[Spanarkel]

Since KenPom is routinely cited on DBR, can someone please explain how KenPom currently ranks Arizona State 34th, vs. AP ranking of 5(with 5 first place votes)and USA Today ranking of 6th? Is there no place for the eye test anymore?

(sorry if this question is better addressed in a current thread, please feel free to move)

[uh_no]

preseason bias

[MChambers]

Since KenPom is routinely cited on DBR, can someone please explain how KenPom currently ranks Arizona State 34th, vs. AP ranking of 5(with 5 first place votes)and USA Today ranking of 6th? Is there no place for the eye test anymore?

(sorry if this question is better addressed in a current thread, please feel free to move)

KenPom is entirely based on statistics, not the eye test. If you don't like it, you can rely on the polls. Personally, I think the polls have overrated ASU, although the Sun Devils do have two more players joining the rotation in the next few weeks, and they could make ASU a lot better.

[CDu]

To expand upon what uh_no said, Pomeroy includes a preseason factor every year to allow for rankings early in the season. His approach depends upon data to rank teams' performances, and early in the season the data just doesn't exist. The preseason factor is based on a team's returning talent and their historical performance. As the season goes on, the preseason factor is weighted less and less and eventually not at all.

As such, Arizona State is being deflated by their past performance. That will go away. As long as Arizona State keeps winning, they'll keep rising.

[sagegrouse]

preseason bias

KenPom is entirely based on statistics, not the eye test. If you don't like it, you can rely on the polls. Personally, I think the polls have overrated ASU, although the Sun Devils do have two more players joining the rotation in the next few weeks, and they could make ASU a lot better.

I believe Pomeroy's approach does not weight current year results 100 percent until early to mid-January. So, what else figures in? Some preseason assessment, including heuristics (quantitative judgment).

[UrinalCake]

Seems like every year there’s a team or two where the KenPom numbers don’t line up. Last year it was Wichita State, if I remember correctly they were a borderline top-15 team in the human polls yet their KenPom was really low due to playing in a weak conference, so they got something like a 10 seed.

I don’t have another way to explain why AZ State is so low, they have really good wins against a relatively hard schedule.

[uh_no]

I believe Pomeroy's approach does not weight current year results 100 percent until early to mid-January. So, what else figures in? Some preseason assessment, including heuristics (quantitative judgment).

past 9 years performance, returning players, top 30 recruits, transfers, players coming off injury, penalty for coaching change, coach's history (longer it is, the more impact it has...for instance anywhere tony bennett coaches is going to play slow tempo)

https://kenpom.com/blog/2016-preseason-ratings/

is the best description he has, I think. though he's added transfers since then

[CDu]

Seems like every year there’s a team or two where the KenPom numbers don’t line up. Last year it was Wichita State, if I remember correctly they were a borderline top-15 team in the human polls yet their KenPom was really low due to playing in a weak conference, so they got something like a 10 seed.

I don’t have another way to explain why AZ State is so low, they have really good wins against a relatively hard schedule.

Wichita State was #8 in Pomeroy by the end of the year. So I don't think it was their Pomeroy ranking that dragged them down to a 10 seed. More likely it was that the committee didn't buy them given their W/L record in a mid-major. Their RPI at tourney time was #32, which is the more likely reason that they got the 10 seed. The committee still leans fairly heavily on RPI, and not Pomeroy.

[MChambers]

I believe Pomeroy's approach does not weight current year results 100 percent until early to mid-January. So, what else figures in? Some preseason assessment, including heuristics (quantitative judgment).

But nothing as subjective as the eye test.

[Wahoo2000]

Wichita State was #8 in Pomeroy by the end of the year. So I don't think it was their Pomeroy ranking that dragged them down to a 10 seed. More likely it was that the committee didn't buy them given their W/L record in a mid-major. Their RPI at tourney time was #32, which is the more likely reason that they got the 10 seed. The committee still leans fairly heavily on RPI, and not Pomeroy.

The RPI is such an archaic metric. I don't think the committee members should even receive that info.

Also - In my perfect world, the committee wouldn't even get team names on their sheets, or conference affiliation. Just raw numbers - records, advanced stats, etc. Make the bracket that way first THEN reveal the names and make the fixes to avoid rematches as necessary, and last to adjust for geographical purposes. There just needs to be a way to limit the "tv appeal" as a factor for picking the tournament as much as possible. I know that's not technically supposed to be a part of it, but.... come on.

[wobatus]

past 9 years performance, returning players, top 30 recruits, transfers, players coming off injury, penalty for coaching change, coach's history (longer it is, the more impact it has...for instance anywhere tony bennett coaches is going to play slow tempo)

https://kenpom.com/blog/2016-preseason-ratings/

is the best description he has, I think. though he's added transfers since then

I like to check T-Rank as well as kenpom, and that has Arizona State 19th. Also a number based system but sometimes a little better. They usually match up fairly closely.


http://www.barttorvik.com/

[uh_no]

I like to check T-Rank as well as kenpom, and that has Arizona State 19th. Also a number based system but sometimes a little better. They usually match up fairly closely.


http://www.barttorvik.com/

wasn't aware of them. that site layout is eye-burning though.

[wobatus]

wasn't aware of them. that site layout is eye-burning though.

Indeed. You can go to the individual team pages and that's free, unlike kenpom. Run by Bart Torvik, who is on twitter. Not to start a war or anything, but just went to go find his feed and found this:

https://twitter.com/totally_t_bomb/s...72605871460352

[uh_no]

Indeed. You can go to the individual team pages and that's free, unlike kenpom. Run by Bart Torvik, who is on twitter. Not to start a war or anything, but just went to go find his feed and found this:

https://twitter.com/totally_t_bomb/s...72605871460352

Not sure that'd be war starting...good tournament teams will generally have to be flexible...to be able to make adjustments to prevent a team from doing the same thing every time down the floor. Past few years, we haven't been able to make any adjustment to stop dribble penetration. This year it seems to be threes.

You don't have to be perfect, but you have to be able to do something...and against BC, we couldn't do anything.

This team right now would be susceptible to a hot shooting team, but most teams are, including MSU. It's just that it took an all american to beat MSU, but it took a couple of <?????> from BC to beat us.

This isn't the team that we'll go into march with, though. I still think there is a lot of room for improvement...I think the things that need fixing are more fixable than perhaps I have thought in years past. Guarding the three is a bit more about spacing and length than the technique required for guarding the dribble. IMO anyway.

[godins]

wasn't aware of them. that site layout is eye-burning though.

As if KenPom's layout is any better? I like the use of "hot" and "cold" color scales to quickly show teams near the top/bottom of the distribution curve for a given statistic. Plus, it's free and free is nice.

[Olympic Fan]

The RPI is such an archaic metric. I don't think the committee members should even receive that info.

You might not like the RPI (and I have problems with it), but all of us have to understand that RPI is the committee's favorite tool. It's used more to determine good wins and bad losses, than raw ranking. But when the committee looks at a teams' top 50 record or top 100 record, they are talking about RPI.

So like it or not, we need to pay attention to the RPI -- more attention than to Pomeroy, Sagarin or any other ranking system.

PS: Duke ranks higher in the RPI at the moment than in Pomeroy, Sagarin or either of the major polls. As of this morning, Duke is No. 2 behind Texas A&M:

http://m.espn.com/ncb/rpi

[uh_no]

As if KenPom's layout is any better? I like the use of "hot" and "cold" color scales to quickly show teams near the top/bottom of the distribution curve for a given statistic. Plus, it's free and free is nice.

- the horizontal dividers simply stop halfway across.
- a serif font at that size and density is overwhelming (there's a reason sans fonts like arial and helvetica are ubiquitous in digital settings).
- The vertical spacing is a bit much. It breaks up the visual appeal of the table, IMO
- there are no vertical dividers in the table
- dense tables will often break things up by alternating background colors (see kenpom). Obviously that is more difficult when you are adding color to display data, but there are several un-colored columns in the graph. this technique could be applied there

I think the font thing is probably the worst part, followed by the lack of dividers...but they all combine to make a very visually un-appealing table. Adding colors on top of the already iffy layout choices make the whole thing overwhelming

Not that this has any bearing on the work he's doing...which I will surely look into

[UrinalCake]

Also - In my perfect world, the committee wouldn't even get team names on their sheets, or conference affiliation. Just raw numbers - records, advanced stats, etc.

I’ve had that same thought - take away whatever prejudices the committee members have based on the name on the jersey and treat everyone based solely off their body of work. In practice this would be difficult to do, because the people could mostly figure out which team they’re looking at based on the numbers. So you’d have to sequester the committee members for the entire season, not let them watch anything, then present the numbers to them on Selection Sunday. But it’s still a good idea in theory.

[uh_no]

I’ve had that same thought - take away whatever prejudices the committee members have based on the name on the jersey and treat everyone based solely off their body of work. In practice this would be difficult to do, because the people could mostly figure out which team they’re looking at based on the numbers. So you’d have to sequester the committee members for the entire season, not let them watch anything, then present the numbers to them on Selection Sunday. But it’s still a good idea in theory.

There is also a problem of recusal. If you figure out which team is which, you obviously have a major conflict of interest. You also can't recuse yourself without everyone else knowing which team is which.

In practice everyone would know who's who anyway.

Whatever criteria they use are going to be arbitrary and up for debate. We get something to talk about. And if we get screwed or benefit every once in a while? At least it gave us something to rabble about!

[ipatent]

Generally I prefer KenPom, but ASU is up to #13 in Sagarin.